At any rate, should be good stuff. Newcomer Chris Enloe made the book suggestion, and he says you can merely read the first 100 pages and have a great time with this novel, with more than enough fodder for conversation next month (after all, isn't Crime always more interesting and fun than Punishment?).
Note that there are a number of translations available. Chris' personally recommends the translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky, but then he also makes the sensible suggestion that you go to the bookstore and read the first several paragraphs in each translation they offer to find the one that works for you. I enjoyed P & V's translation of The Brothers Karamazov, but I'm also intrigued that there's a Norton Critical Editions version available for this one.
But back to last night . . . our discussion of No Country for Old Men has to rank up there with the one we had for Under the Banner of Heaven a few years back (minus the alleged threatened ass-kicking). We ranged from serious thematic questions about the nature of evil and the future of humanity to critical considerations of literary craft. We reminisced about the women in South America and discussed the depths/heights to which reality television has fallen/climbed. We admired the scenery. Mullen admitted that he cried at the end of Charlotte's Web. Recently.
Some of the better discussion-generating questions we had:
- Does McCarthy share Sheriff Bell's worldview that our society is sliding inexorably into decay, or do we make a mistake if we conflate the worldview of a fictional character with that of the author?
- Whether the opinion is Bell's or McCarthy's, do you agree with it?
- Why did Moss go back to the scene of the crime? To take the dying man a drink of water? To kill the only person who saw him there? To (rather hamfistedly) serve the needs of the author in advancing the plot? Is this action believable or a sour note in the narrative?
- Do you think more or less of McCarthy for writing such a relatively accessible book?
- If you were in Moss' shoes, would you take the money?
Feel free one and all to add your thoughts, particularly those of you who couldn't make it last night. Add a comment here, or--for those of you with authorship rights--start a new post if you like.
4 comments:
First of all, a comment about the comment "Crime is more fun than punishment." As Peter knows, its all depends on who is giving the punishment...
The questions provoked at your meeting are quite interesting. I wonder if anyone was able to articulate what I thought the authors point of view, which he expressed through the sheriff: one simple decision puts us on a path. Or in the case of No Country, what starts as a selfless act (finding a bleeding man), turns into a selfish act (taking the money), which leads to survival. Before you know it, you’re in the middle of a Mexican shoot out, blowing shit up, bleeding back over the boarder, and almost committing the unthinkable with a teenage runaway. Happened to me once back before I was shipped off to Nam, I carried that with me for a long time (but we've already discussed that book).
I hope to make the next book club. I will strongly suggest Crime and Punishment to the Highlands equivalent -- we are about to discuss Isakson's Albert Einstein.
Brian
1. If you argue that McCarthy's world view is expressed thorugh the Sherrif, why are you picking the Sherrif? Why aren't you picking Moss, or Chugargh? You think McCarthy would express his worldview through the most obvious outlet?
2. What's wrong with being able to bring your skill to the masses? Even as accessible as it is, "No Country..." is still better than 99% of the books out there. And if that means that a few million more people pick up such a thought-provoking work instead of some of the other crap that's out there...GREAT! GOOD JOB, CORMAC!
3. There is brilliance in the fact that half of us thought Moss went back to give the dying man water while half of us thought he went back to waste the only witness. Brilliant brilliant brilliant. It's so much easier to write your own interpretation than to write so that others might interpret multiple motives and choices. If you think that McCarthy used Moss' returnto the scene as a plot bridge, consider this. McCarthy could think of a dozen ways to get the drug lords on Moss' trail - all easier to write than the one he chose (a finger print, a dropped wallet, no explanation, the survivor at the scene lives and id's Moss, etc). But he gave his character a complex moral decision instead, and true to form, it wiped off on everyone of us.
Ok back to work...
I agree with Michael, Moss returning to the scene is more than a creaky plot device. easy enough to have him lose his wallet or something to put the bad guys on his trail.
as for McCarthy selling out - this notion always puzzles me. I don't think the fact that Shakespeare packed them in made him a hack, nor do I think the fact that nobody not paid to do so gets Joyce makes him a demigod.
IMHO much modern literature is willfully obscure and more concerned with impressing professors than readers. Good for them, but in 100 yrs 99% of these writers will be forgotten and the ones that are still read will be, as always, the ones who reach more than just acolytes and careerists.
Lumpy -- I seemed to have enjoyed the book as much as you, for all the reasons you mentioned. However, I do think Cormac makes one simple statement in all his books, and then takes us on a wonderful ride. Which is why the Sherrif was such an important character, he is simple.
Post a Comment